The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is a psychological phenomenon that highlights people's tendency to | The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is a psychological phenomenon that highlights people's tendency to recognize the unreliability of media when it comes to topics they're familiar with, while still trusting the media for information on other topics. | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> |
Revision as of 13:42, 16 July 2023
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is a psychological phenomenon that highlights people's tendency to recognize the unreliability of media when it comes to topics they're familiar with, while still trusting the media for information on other topics.
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backwardâreversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
âMichael Crichton
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect